The Global Consciousness Project, also called the EGG Project, is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others. We collect data continuously from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites around the world. The archive contains more than 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second.

Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We predict structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events. When millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network data show meaningful departures from expectation. This is a powerful finding based in solid science.

Subtle but real effects of consciousness are important scientifically, but their real power is more direct. They encourage us to help make essential, healthy changes in the great systems that dominate our world. Large scale group consciousness has effects in the physical world. Knowing this, we can use our full capacities for creative movement toward a conscious future.

Nelson is one of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research staffPEAR - Staff

Quote:

Roger D. Nelson, Operations Coordinator
Roger is an experimental psychologist whose long PEAR experience in experimental design, statistical modeling, and data interpretation are now being directed to his intriguing research on Global Consciousness

The Global Consciousness Project (GCP, also called the EGG Project) is a parapsychology experiment begun in 1998, described as an attempt to detect potential interactions of "global consciousness" with physical systems. The project reportedly uses a geographically distributed network of hardware random number generators to uncover potential anomalies in their output that might correlate with world events that elicit widespread emotional response or focused attention by large numbers of people.[1] According to the GCP, the experiment aims to test a conjecture that they feel would extend the range of anomalous phenomena currently encompassed by psi research. The GCP is privately funded through the Institute of Noetic Sciences[2] and describes itself as an international collaboration of about 100 research scientists and engineers.

Skeptics such as Robert T. Carroll, Claus Larsen, and others have questioned the methodology of the Global Consciousness Project, particularly how the data are selected and interpreted.[3][4], saying that data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias that ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness[5]

Quote:

Research
The GCP's methodology is based on the hypothesis that events that elicit widespread emotion or draw the simultaneous attention of large numbers of people may affect the output of hardware random number generators in a statistically significant way.[1] The GCP maintains a network of hardware random number generators which are interfaced to computers at 65 locations around the world.Custom software reads the output of the random number generators and records a trial (sum of 200 bits) once every second. The data are sent to a server in Princeton, creating a database of synchronized parallel sequences of random numbers. The GCP is run as a replication experiment, essentially combining the results of many distinct tests of the hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested by calculating the extent of data fluctuations at the time of events. The procedure is specified by a three-step experimental protocol.[10] In the first step, the event duration and the calculation algorithm are pre-specified and entered into a formal registry.[11] In the second step, the event data are extracted from the database and a Z score, which indicates the degree of deviation from the null hypothesis, is calculated from the pre-specified algorithm. In the third step, the event Z-score is combined with the Z-scores from previous events to yield an overall result for the experiment. The GCP claims that, as of late 2009, the cumulative result of more than 300 registered events significantly supports their hypothesis.[12]

The remote devices have been dubbed Princeton Eggs, a reference to the coinage electrogaiagram, a portmanteau of electroencephalogram and Gaia.[13] Supporters and skeptics have referred to the aim of the GCP as being analogous to detecting "a great disturbance in The Force."[3][14][15]

Length 1 hour 34 minutes. Embedding of this video has been disabled by the Googletechtalks youtube channel for whatever reason, a minor inconvenience anyway (just click the link above the video).

Quote:

Google Tech Talks
January, 16 2008

ABSTRACT

Do telepathy, clairvoyance and other "psi" abilities exist? The majority of the general population believes that they do, and yet fewer than one percent of mainstream academic institutions have any faculty known for their interest in these frequently reported experiences. Why is a topic of enduring and widespread interest met with such resounding silence in academia? The answer is not due to a lack of scientific evidence, or even to a lack of scientific interest, but rather involves a taboo. I will discuss the nature of this taboo, some of the empirical evidence and critical responses, and speculate on the implications.

Speaker: Dean Radin
Dean Radin is a researcher and author in the field of parapsychology. He is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and four-time former President of the Parapsychological Association. He holds an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and a masters degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in educational psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has worked at AT&T Bell Labs and GTE Labs, mainly on human factors of advanced telecommunications products and services, and held appointments at Princeton University, Edinburgh University, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, SRI International, Interval Research Corporation, and Boundary Institute. At these facilities he was engaged in basic research on exceptional human capacities, principally psi phenomena.

Have they found any concrete evidence supporting the psi hypothesis? Unfortunately, I do not have an hour and a half to watch the video.

Do you have 1 minute and 58 seconds? If you accept the claims of the gentleman below, then yes there is concrete evidence. Experimentation involving the human mind affecting random number generators has been down quite extensively, not just by this particular experiment that has been going since 1998 that he is involved in.

For more information see the other thread I posted about the Global Consciousness Project. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t748748/ I posted these two threads at the exact same time for a good reason, it all overlaps.

Do you have 1 minute and 58 seconds? If you accept the claims of the gentleman below, then yes there is concrete evidence. Experimentation involving the human mind affecting random number generators has been down quite extensively, not just by this particular experiment that has been going since 1998 that he is involved in.

For more information see the other thread I posted about the Global Consciousness Project. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t748748/ I posted these two threads at the exact same time for a good reason, it all overlaps.

I watched your video, and it is very vague. There are no links to the "study" he mentions, he does not mention whether or not the number generation was randomly fluctuating in its odds [without the events], and he failed to specify by how much the odds were skewered during the events he mentioned. Not even mentioning the control group for the study seems silly.

"What we find is a change from 50-50 odds to something different than that" - Like what? 51-49?

It's certainly interesting, but it does reek of pseudoscience (from what I've seen).

I've heard of it and read about it before. I'll look at it again, but I can't say I'll have an opinion one way or another.

About the idea that they are somehow cherry-picking patterns, that seems a little off to me, based on the unlikelihood of such large numbers of people presenting any consistent pattern, but I suppose I could be wrong on that.

I've read skeptical opinions before too. One that stands out in memory was some prof who said he'd rather believe Radin and company were crazy than that there were errors in conventional electromagnetism (or something like that); I tend to agree.

Supposedly, and I see no reason to say no, the EGG people are being empirical. They don't have any overarching model, or at least nothing that intersects tightly with ordinary physics (although I believe Radin has a book out to the contrary -- something to do with quantum effects at long distances and low frequencies, with intervening dirt tending to attenuate the effect, if memory serves me). Still . . .

Yeah maybe I was a little hasty. I gave the video a look and what the bearded gentleman seems to be saying is that when the data sample is reduced (by focusing on a particular event) that greater variation is seen in the balance between 0 and 1. This is completely to be expected, it's useful to consider the extremes to see why. If the data sample were infinitely long then we would find a perfect balance between 1 and 0, if it were limited to a sample of 1, then we would see either 100% of 1 or 100% of 0.

I also have a problem with the idea of 1 or 0 being considered positive or negative in relation to an event's desirability. This seems to rest on the experimenter's interpretation of the meta-value of 1 or 0 as positive (good) or negative (bad).

But most of all, the bearded gentleman reminds me of a con artist. I like alternative science and parapsychology but I'm not buying this.